Is the "Heavy" Piston Twin dead
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Rats,
Tell me about it, we paid $660 for 200L drum recently.
100LL as we know it is not going to get any better, so don't expect that product to be here for long after UL avgas comes along.
There have been a few try over the years, the oil companies readily admit they have failed, but a really smart, quiet chap from a small town in Oklahoma has solved it. All the flight testing is done, the FAArequirements are satisfied, and at present the reports and paperwork are being done. This is like a single man type certifying a new airliner in workload terms. The guy is a genius, and clearly nuts
The stuff is good, I have had the honor of dipping my finger in the jar, so to speak, I know what it is made of (no don't ask
) and the good thing is it is easy to produce can be made in any decent refinery, and has no compatibility issues with other fuels. That means it can go into car fuel in any amount, so a messed up batch is not HAZMAT waste, it just makes awesome mogas.
Better still you can have 9999L of avgas, tip in one litre of G100UL and you now have non-conforming hazmat Avgas, but what you also have is conforming G100UL. It still meets spec. So. In any blend in your tank or the bowser tank it matters not.
Better vapor pressure and much higher octane, better than the old purple stuff, so anyone with high performance blown engines who have to run low blower on avgas will think all their Christmas wishes have come at once.
So it may not be massively cheaper, but the ability to produce it and sell it to other markets not just aviation and other factors means it should be cheaper, if not certainly more readily available.
This will not be next week, but it is not far away I hope. I will be over there in March and I hope by then George will have some more stuff to share. He deserves a knighthood for his work on this.
Tell me about it, we paid $660 for 200L drum recently.
100LL as we know it is not going to get any better, so don't expect that product to be here for long after UL avgas comes along.
There have been a few try over the years, the oil companies readily admit they have failed, but a really smart, quiet chap from a small town in Oklahoma has solved it. All the flight testing is done, the FAArequirements are satisfied, and at present the reports and paperwork are being done. This is like a single man type certifying a new airliner in workload terms. The guy is a genius, and clearly nuts
The stuff is good, I have had the honor of dipping my finger in the jar, so to speak, I know what it is made of (no don't ask
) and the good thing is it is easy to produce can be made in any decent refinery, and has no compatibility issues with other fuels. That means it can go into car fuel in any amount, so a messed up batch is not HAZMAT waste, it just makes awesome mogas.Better still you can have 9999L of avgas, tip in one litre of G100UL and you now have non-conforming hazmat Avgas, but what you also have is conforming G100UL. It still meets spec. So. In any blend in your tank or the bowser tank it matters not.
Better vapor pressure and much higher octane, better than the old purple stuff, so anyone with high performance blown engines who have to run low blower on avgas will think all their Christmas wishes have come at once.
So it may not be massively cheaper, but the ability to produce it and sell it to other markets not just aviation and other factors means it should be cheaper, if not certainly more readily available.
This will not be next week, but it is not far away I hope. I will be over there in March and I hope by then George will have some more stuff to share. He deserves a knighthood for his work on this.
Last edited by Jabawocky; 12th Dec 2012 at 21:57.
Jaba,
It sounds like one of those "It's too good to be true stories" almost snake oil.
I really hope what you say will come to fruition, BUT how come a "nobody" (for want of a better description) has been able to do what all the might of the oil companies hasn't been able to do?
Can you point us to any online info on this product. All I could find was reference to "Swift" which hails from Indiana
It sounds like one of those "It's too good to be true stories" almost snake oil.
I really hope what you say will come to fruition, BUT how come a "nobody" (for want of a better description) has been able to do what all the might of the oil companies hasn't been able to do?
Can you point us to any online info on this product. All I could find was reference to "Swift" which hails from Indiana
Thanks,
An interesting read. Looks like bureaucracy is alive and well slowing things down.
Oh and George isn't quite a nobody either.
An interesting read. Looks like bureaucracy is alive and well slowing things down.
Oh and George isn't quite a nobody either.
Last edited by 27/09; 12th Dec 2012 at 22:42.
There is also Swift fuel...mad from biomas.
As far as oil running out, who cares. We can make fuel from algea.
Home - The Next Generation of Aviation Fuels | Swift Fuels
The only problem with Gammi fuel is its heavier, so if u blend it, what sg do you use.
As far as oil running out, who cares. We can make fuel from algea.
Home - The Next Generation of Aviation Fuels | Swift Fuels
The only problem with Gammi fuel is its heavier, so if u blend it, what sg do you use.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oh and George isn't quite a nobody either.
Swift Fuel I fear will not get up. I could be wrong, but it just does not add up.
An interesting read. Looks like bureaucracy is alive and well slowing things down.
hahahaha ohhh yeah. And some of the petty politics that went on in the last couple of years would make you furious.
I really hope what you say will come to fruition, BUT how come a "nobody" (for want of a better description) has been able to do what all the might of the oil companies hasn't been able to do?
I wish I did let me say quietly!To explain in simple terms, why the big oil have not done this before, when they had spent millions of dollars trying, was they went about it the wrong way. I was fortunate or privileged enough to spend a fair bit of quality time with George one Sunday afternoon in his office and he produced a piece of paper, which I was surprised he let me read. I had a look on my face of ...."no way, you are kidding me, its that easy!!!"
He then asked so what is your next question, to which I said how come nobody in the big oil has done this before? He just smiled and said, that was his question of the top fuel scientists at a couple of the oil companies. The oil company responses were, well we just did not look in the right place, they were basically head down bum up looking in the wrong corner of the envelope.
Simple as that.
George's approach was to develop a solution with a clean sheet of paper, then write a specification around that solution. And one that included no issues with change over.
Like I said..... smartest bloke I know. And I know some pretty smart folk. Makes me feel like an amoeba in the ocean of intelligence
As for running out of oil....... nope, that is not a problem. And he gave me a guided tour of some of that too. The Arabs used to be the oil well of the world. Not now.
Bottom line here is.... Fuel is not the excuse for the death of any sector of GA, or should not be in the next year or so.
Last edited by Jabawocky; 13th Dec 2012 at 01:36.
A question for you Jabawocky, keeping in mind i'm still a junior and not savvy with these sorts of things, so excuse me if this seems like a silly question. If George is having such problems with the FAA waylaying him, why not try with another group? like JAA or EASA or someone like that...? Would it be possible to bring it to ICAO if the FAA are found to be unduly dragging out the process due to other interested parties (Read BP and Shell) using their influence to sustain their profits at the expense of all Avgas users??
So far we have seen a HSI on a PT-6 for a Cheyenne can run about 50K Does anyone know what a fukk overhaull would cost and say the cost of a new PT6
A new TIO-540 brank spankers runs about 95K and an overhaul about 50ish.
Yes we know a turbine is the go for commercial ops, but the discussion here is about a PVT aircraft.
A new TIO-540 brank spankers runs about 95K and an overhaul about 50ish.
Yes we know a turbine is the go for commercial ops, but the discussion here is about a PVT aircraft.
Has anyone been out to Bankstown lately? The former Wingaway fleet are being replaced, at least in part, by PACs. Some of the piston twins are even being chopped up for scrap. Unless production and sales of a new piston type kick off in the next couple of years, piston twins will be all but out of commercial charter by 2020.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba,no need to be shy about GAMI on this thread. I'd be a bit hesitant about mentioning it on the " USA outlaws carbon tax " thread. You might upset Sprocket Check, Flying Binghi and other members of the Flat Earth Society who seem to frequent that one.
Adding to Ixixly's idea-- Why not CASA? For once they could come up smelling of roses and be applauded not just in Australia but in the whole aviation world for being the first approve G100 UL. I'd bet there are more than a few car rev heads who would also welcome a new unleaded fuel with in excess of 100 octane.
This weeks New Scientist has an interesting article on carbon neutral fuel. Another article that would interest fuelophiles is about new discoveries by Aust. scientists on how photosynthesis might be copied to very cheaply split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
Scientists unlock nature's hydrogen secrets - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Cheers RA
Adding to Ixixly's idea-- Why not CASA? For once they could come up smelling of roses and be applauded not just in Australia but in the whole aviation world for being the first approve G100 UL. I'd bet there are more than a few car rev heads who would also welcome a new unleaded fuel with in excess of 100 octane.
This weeks New Scientist has an interesting article on carbon neutral fuel. Another article that would interest fuelophiles is about new discoveries by Aust. scientists on how photosynthesis might be copied to very cheaply split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
Scientists unlock nature's hydrogen secrets - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Cheers RA
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
To answer it simply, the testing done is one thing, the paperwork is another. As much as it takes time could you honestly believe it would be quicker here or in Europe? I doubt it.
As you would know from looking at what they do, GAMI and TAT are very familiar with the process of having FAA approvals done. What is more they are an FAA approved engine test cell provider.
If anyone has any idea on how to wade through the process it is them.
It is now just the process. The road blockers were caught out at their silly games and their boss, well from what I was told she was not impressed. Problem solved.
As you would know from looking at what they do, GAMI and TAT are very familiar with the process of having FAA approvals done. What is more they are an FAA approved engine test cell provider.
If anyone has any idea on how to wade through the process it is them.
It is now just the process. The road blockers were caught out at their silly games and their boss, well from what I was told she was not impressed. Problem solved.
The TBM-850, Meridian, PC12, King Air, C208, kestrel, PAC750 and others are all magnificent aircraft. They have [performance and avionics that even 20 years ago would have been the relm of fantasy, but they are the Mercedes and Cadilacs of the sky.
What we need is the Toyota. These were the Chieftains, 404's and Qeenairs. They dont have to be really really fast, or ultra long range. Just something to move the family 100-250nm with the kids, dog and surboards...maybe even the mother in law.
Sure a Kingair 250 would be lurverly. But only if I win Lotto. Pistons are what normal people will be able to afford. I can see the day when there are hundreds of Citation Mustangs and Meridians for sale with run out engines when the realise just how much a turbine engine costs to overhaul.
A Piper Matrix is bloody nice but it isnt big enough. There is nothing available between that and the PC12.
What we need is the Toyota. These were the Chieftains, 404's and Qeenairs. They dont have to be really really fast, or ultra long range. Just something to move the family 100-250nm with the kids, dog and surboards...maybe even the mother in law.
Sure a Kingair 250 would be lurverly. But only if I win Lotto. Pistons are what normal people will be able to afford. I can see the day when there are hundreds of Citation Mustangs and Meridians for sale with run out engines when the realise just how much a turbine engine costs to overhaul.
A Piper Matrix is bloody nice but it isnt big enough. There is nothing available between that and the PC12.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK here is a bit more for the motor heads out there.
G100UL typically exceeds the min spec for avgas by quite a bit, MON99.5. As this test sheet shows over MON101.
So have a look at the comments at the bottom highlighted. That should put a smile on a big turbo radial owner, things that like a lot more boost than 100LL will permit
And for the folk who need a (R+M)/2 number that is a bit better than average check this out
Now compared to the BP 98 Ultimate that many racers etc have easy access to which has a RON=98 and MON=86 you can see why the avgas was popular. And the (R+M)/2 is 91 compared to over 105.
So yes the petrol heads will love this stuff and it will be a legal UL fuel to use. Of course you need an engine to be built accordingly to take advantage of it.
OK back to topic.....Piston twins assuming fuel is not an issue. An Aerostar ..... now where is our mate UTR. He seems quiet.
G100UL typically exceeds the min spec for avgas by quite a bit, MON99.5. As this test sheet shows over MON101.
So have a look at the comments at the bottom highlighted. That should put a smile on a big turbo radial owner, things that like a lot more boost than 100LL will permit
And for the folk who need a (R+M)/2 number that is a bit better than average check this out
Now compared to the BP 98 Ultimate that many racers etc have easy access to which has a RON=98 and MON=86 you can see why the avgas was popular. And the (R+M)/2 is 91 compared to over 105.
So yes the petrol heads will love this stuff and it will be a legal UL fuel to use. Of course you need an engine to be built accordingly to take advantage of it.
OK back to topic.....Piston twins assuming fuel is not an issue. An Aerostar
..... now where is our mate UTR. He seems quiet.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: earth
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this could be an option? 
402 Turbine - The Falcon Flies
or this?
Serious questions loom over GM-17 Viper project | Aviation International News
Where would I put my paxs' typical unrealistic amount of bags??
402 Turbine - The Falcon Flies
or this?
Serious questions loom over GM-17 Viper project | Aviation International News
Where would I put my paxs' typical unrealistic amount of bags??
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Far, far away
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about STCs to replace TIO-540s with TD450s? Continental 300HP diesels.
Continental: Diesel Line Expanding, STC's Planned
Other articles indicate these engines should be in production by 2015-2017
W W W . D I E S E L A I R . C O M -- The Diesel Air Newsletter -- Home
For lower time PA31-350 airframes (well any with less than say 24,000 TT), this could be an interesting JetA1 burning option, replacing the evil leaded 100LL, and remaining a significantly cheaper option in maintenance terms than going the turboprop route.
Continental: Diesel Line Expanding, STC's Planned
Other articles indicate these engines should be in production by 2015-2017
W W W . D I E S E L A I R . C O M -- The Diesel Air Newsletter -- Home
For lower time PA31-350 airframes (well any with less than say 24,000 TT), this could be an interesting JetA1 burning option, replacing the evil leaded 100LL, and remaining a significantly cheaper option in maintenance terms than going the turboprop route.
Last edited by PhillC; 15th Dec 2012 at 13:59.
When you live....
PAC750
It's as low-budget/utility as they come but the price of the donk and the fact that it's new still give it the massive price tag.
A new piston twin that fell into the category that private owners might more be able to afford is going to cost the same or more - see Seneca V prices...
For lower time PA31-350 airframes (well any with less than say 24,000 TT)
